I had promised myself that I would start a blog in 2018 in order to start in some tiny way becoming more active in and around the topics I care about. I think other people care about them too and are probably already articulating them satisfactorily without my input, but like I said, this is about motivating me to become more engaged. Well we all have to start somewhere don't we?
So what are the things that I would like to write about? Firstly, evidence based thinking and why we should all be doing it. Secondly Open Access literature and open culture, where we are and where we want to be. These are tangential connected, they're both about access to and exploitation of research evidence but they are different topics. I think the reason I care particularly about these topics is my job. As a government type Librarian my work is focused on encouraging not necessarily academically inclined professionals that Libraries are relevant to their work, promoting a 'what works' according to evidence as opposed to experience agenda, and achieving these things as part of a small team with a small budget. I think this is important because I think university Librarian's are used to having very high levels of funding because access to research is just expected and so funding will generally materialise to ensure continued access to things. This is a horrible generalisation but from some interaction with various university librarians it seems even smaller uni's have reasonable library budgets. It is also expected that students and academics will use the Library. I have worked in a government setting with students doing accredited degrees where if they achieved correct referencing of at least something vaguely plausible from the internet, that was generally seen as a victory. This was partly because of low expectations and low academic engagement, and partly because the staff knew the library didn't have the funding to provide the resources required so had to make allowances.
To summarise my professional reasoning: we are expecting government employees (police, military etc) to work in the best way using the best practices despite limited access to the best available evidence in their fields. Sometimes they'll have access while they're studying, while they have a relationship with a university, but that gets taken away when their studies are over, in other words when they are expected to put everything into practice. Clearly there are resources, libraries, they can use, but they can be depressingly invisible despite best efforts and may not be able to provide access to the relevant resources. I would like the barriers to access and understanding of evidence to be removed.
That all sounds a bit bleak, I actually think things are improving but there is a long way to go.
My other motivation is personal. I read and watch a ridiculous amount of Youtube. I know Open Access publishing is a wonderful concept but the models seem very flawed for both the customer and the universities. The publishers seem to be doing quite well for reasons that continue to baffle me. I know Youtube should provide a platform for innovative and creative content, but its pay models seem to encourage the churning of generic and uninspiring content. But there are still a lot of great people on there doing great things. I also have an interest around copyright and what is 'original content' and would like us to live in a freer culture more generally.
I know that not everything I think or do is based on the best available evidence; perhaps it would be absurd to try and live your life that way, but read my way through several Ben Goldacre books and blogs I do try a harder to reflect on whether my thoughts and opinions are rational (where possible obviously, moths are always going to be terrifying to me). It's also clear to me that most of us are very swayed by what we read - red wine/chocolate/red meat are good/bad for you according to this weeks study - and that Dr Goldacre, as accessible as I think he is, clearly isn't loved by all. I tried lending one of his books to my mum but she couldn't get into it. Wasn't that interested in it I suppose, but it does seem like something everyone should be a little bit interested in if it can be made accessible. Of course if it can, people are generally going to have to take Ben or whomever's word for it, because the research Ben's work is based on is often behind paywalls.
That was probably all a bit of a ramble, so I will also summarise my personal reasoning: I think everyone should be able to know what is the best available advice on health or finance or criminal justice etc., the evidence should be presented in such a way that it's understandable and accessible to everyone, people should be able to understand why this is the best available evidence and they should have access to the research that proves it, even if they will never read it. The dream would be like a combination of wikipedia, Snopes and Cochrane.
On that note, part two of my promise to myself was to look to become a Wikipedia editor, so if I get brave enough i'll let you know. Otherwise I will aim to post a number of blogs on these topics and see where this goes! Hopefully to more engagement with other similarly minded librarians.
So what are the things that I would like to write about? Firstly, evidence based thinking and why we should all be doing it. Secondly Open Access literature and open culture, where we are and where we want to be. These are tangential connected, they're both about access to and exploitation of research evidence but they are different topics. I think the reason I care particularly about these topics is my job. As a government type Librarian my work is focused on encouraging not necessarily academically inclined professionals that Libraries are relevant to their work, promoting a 'what works' according to evidence as opposed to experience agenda, and achieving these things as part of a small team with a small budget. I think this is important because I think university Librarian's are used to having very high levels of funding because access to research is just expected and so funding will generally materialise to ensure continued access to things. This is a horrible generalisation but from some interaction with various university librarians it seems even smaller uni's have reasonable library budgets. It is also expected that students and academics will use the Library. I have worked in a government setting with students doing accredited degrees where if they achieved correct referencing of at least something vaguely plausible from the internet, that was generally seen as a victory. This was partly because of low expectations and low academic engagement, and partly because the staff knew the library didn't have the funding to provide the resources required so had to make allowances.
To summarise my professional reasoning: we are expecting government employees (police, military etc) to work in the best way using the best practices despite limited access to the best available evidence in their fields. Sometimes they'll have access while they're studying, while they have a relationship with a university, but that gets taken away when their studies are over, in other words when they are expected to put everything into practice. Clearly there are resources, libraries, they can use, but they can be depressingly invisible despite best efforts and may not be able to provide access to the relevant resources. I would like the barriers to access and understanding of evidence to be removed.
That all sounds a bit bleak, I actually think things are improving but there is a long way to go.
My other motivation is personal. I read and watch a ridiculous amount of Youtube. I know Open Access publishing is a wonderful concept but the models seem very flawed for both the customer and the universities. The publishers seem to be doing quite well for reasons that continue to baffle me. I know Youtube should provide a platform for innovative and creative content, but its pay models seem to encourage the churning of generic and uninspiring content. But there are still a lot of great people on there doing great things. I also have an interest around copyright and what is 'original content' and would like us to live in a freer culture more generally.
I know that not everything I think or do is based on the best available evidence; perhaps it would be absurd to try and live your life that way, but read my way through several Ben Goldacre books and blogs I do try a harder to reflect on whether my thoughts and opinions are rational (where possible obviously, moths are always going to be terrifying to me). It's also clear to me that most of us are very swayed by what we read - red wine/chocolate/red meat are good/bad for you according to this weeks study - and that Dr Goldacre, as accessible as I think he is, clearly isn't loved by all. I tried lending one of his books to my mum but she couldn't get into it. Wasn't that interested in it I suppose, but it does seem like something everyone should be a little bit interested in if it can be made accessible. Of course if it can, people are generally going to have to take Ben or whomever's word for it, because the research Ben's work is based on is often behind paywalls.
That was probably all a bit of a ramble, so I will also summarise my personal reasoning: I think everyone should be able to know what is the best available advice on health or finance or criminal justice etc., the evidence should be presented in such a way that it's understandable and accessible to everyone, people should be able to understand why this is the best available evidence and they should have access to the research that proves it, even if they will never read it. The dream would be like a combination of wikipedia, Snopes and Cochrane.
On that note, part two of my promise to myself was to look to become a Wikipedia editor, so if I get brave enough i'll let you know. Otherwise I will aim to post a number of blogs on these topics and see where this goes! Hopefully to more engagement with other similarly minded librarians.
Comments
Post a Comment